It would be interesting to get your point of view about Anschluss after the re-unification with East Germany. Would there be any merit in it? BTW, I'm a big fan. ;-)
Mao's revolution was not a real or successful revolution as it did not reach the goals as they are outlined by Marx. The "success" can only be perceived there if you consider Chinese Communists consolidating power and authority. Since huge numbers of people died and in the end the survivors didn't live better quality lives, it is a failed socialist revolution.
China's revolution was the very opposite of the socialist revolution conceived by Marx. Marx saw the rise of industry during his lifetime and saw that its conclusion was the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. In 1920s-1940s China: 1. Very little proletariat even existed; mainly there were just peasants; 2. There was supposed to be communist control of capital, but there was hardly any capital in existence in the country to be redistributed; 3. Marx would have envisioned socialism to be the end state to be pursued by the *most* industrialised countries (remember Marx was German, one of the richer countries globally); China in the 1920s-1949 was one of the poorest places in the world; (Marx would also have scoffed at the prospect of sociaism in Russia, Europe's least industrialised major country); 4. Communist revolution would overthrow capitalism. But there was no capitalism to overthrow in China. Interestingly no successful communist revolution has ever taken place in a country with even basic levels of freedom. Every successful communist revolution took place against heavily repressive regimes, (Tsarist Russia), some of which had feudal characteristics (China), or against a repressive colonial power (Vietnam). Turns out people tend not to revolt against *actual* free capitalist regimes that respected people's economic rights. They revolt in the name of communism only when they are against a very *crony* and rigged system. Alas, many western countries have increasingly gone down that path...is there any surprise that so many young people unashamedly praise socialism?
So, transylvanian, what makes you such an expert on Marxism? At least the appearance of one? You seem to be very easily altering the definition of terms and Marxist ideas.
transylvanian Yet as I already showed no free capitalist country has ever been successfully overthrown by socialist revolution. Welfare was demanded postwar because the war economy was inherently anti-libertarian in its workings and required state coercion on a large degree (mass conscription etc.) Free capitalism was in a sense suspended during the war, and it was during this time of coercion that socialist movements became huge. Also it is important to note that welfare =/= socialism, at least not socialism as Marx would understand it. This new modern definition of socialism is very far off from what it used to be. Supposedly "socialist" places like denmark are not at all socialist in the original sense of the word.
Interesting. Somehow the internal turmoil in Austria during the 1930's has somehow slipped through my radar. There is so much information and studies about the German internal power struggle in those years that most of the other European nations in similar conditions have sort of faded in the background.
StPaul76 I found it all very interesting. It's not very well covered, not like every detail of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. I'd always thought Austria was some innocent peaceful little republic that got stomped flat by the Nazis -- nope, not so much.
There are plenty of studies about internal power struggles in 1930's Europe. The difference is that in Germany/Austria it did lead into a different societal system, alongside Italy. Other famous one is the Spanish Civil War. There was lots of friction between different ideologies during the time, but the difference is that either those were suppressed (USSR) or did not lead to revolution or any real change (fascist Lapua movement in Finland did gain some support but it was put down already in 1932, after that it broke down to fringe elements with no power). Thus only notable ones are mentioned in schools or media are mostly Germany, Italy and Spain. The rest aren't that history-changing and thus you have to dig deeper to find info about them.
@@Unknown1355 The societal system wasn't changed much, but the overall fights were also fought in the streets and these radicalisation lead to civil wars or conditions for such a thing. Other nations, the so called little states in Europe, never had a real autonomy, but were controlled by the British Empire like Poland or Jugoslavia (especially Belgrade/Serbia). Even if these countries also were targeted by the Communist revolutionaries and agents, this didn't lead towards different public rules, cause the overall appliction of their respective laws wouldn't had any effects cause they were too little, unrespected by their own citizens, who didn't like that the Army was in charge and controlled them as a defacto British legion. These countries inhabitants began to think themselves as individual beings, what made it also difficult for the socialists to gain something from it. That's why Germany was greeted well after the War broke out, what nobody saw as Germany but Englands fault on the continent. Germany and Austria had to develop a reactionary movement in the 20's, same as Italy, Spain, France against a targeted war. Austria-Hungary was destroyed mostly by the Americans, and Socialist coups took place in Germany and Austria after 1918! In the aftermath, Germany annexed Austria. The word annexion is a clear term and fitted perfectly for this, because Austria as a Nation got just eridicated through this. That's the hardest a nation could get. Poland for example was a Generalgouvernement, what just was a organisational term for a non existing country under occupation. And the protectorat of the own Czech Nation state including their army got protection for that case. However, the Austrians had no possibility to fight against the Germans, cause their defacto Fascist leaders in contrast to the National Socialists leaders were removed through assassinations and attemps. Hitlers thinking of Germany was that of a central dictatorship through a party, not that of federally working states.
I read a book a few years called "jackboot" which looked at the Wehrmacht troops in WWII. It was unusual in that it differentiated the Austrian units from the German.
The Germans in Austria had once been the unquestioned masters of the empire. But then in 1867, the Austrian empire broke into the Austro-Hungarian empire -- giving the Hungarians some autonomy. Also in 1867, Basic State Act allowed ethnic minorities to be educated in their own language -- so that the Germans began to feel as if they were a minority in their own empire. After WW1, Austria thought that it couldn't survive alone, so it wanted to become part of Germany. But the Anschluss was denied by the victorious Allies.
little fun fact: Chiang Wei-kuo, a son of Chiang Kai-shek, was in the Wehrmacht during the times of the Anschluss and crossed the border to Austria in a panzer.
@@JacatackLP Not quite. Marxist theory basically predicted that increasing levels of efficiency in industrial and agricultural processes would tend to drive out workers with capital replacing them, and leave a large underutilised pool of reserve labor. As there would be a lot of labor wages would crater, causing resentment, and further causing a socialist revolution. However ; 1) The Russians were a heavily agrarian and unindustrialised society, meaning the revolution was not caused by increasing levels of capital and capital efficiency 2) The precipitating event for the revolution were famines caused by the war and exacerbated by Russias poor infrastructure ,low agricultural productivity, in addition to a lack of labor to work farms properly. Pretty much every prediction of Marx's was made wrong via the example of Russia, as all of the causes were basically the exact opposite of what was predicted.
Marxism and Socalism can't work because a lot of things and because their overall theory is rubbish AND communism targeted at the destruction of the bourgeoise society and order. The Austro Marxism were never a substantial threat towards the Austrian system, but the Soviet Revolution affecting both the new Weimar Republic and newly created Austria also on a governmental level and coups. It's totally uninteresting if former Russia was largely agrarian, because the ineffectiveness was increased under Communist rule and nobody invested to create a non-industrial society. The Socialists who wanted to create Socialism through processes of "reform", called Social Democrats, were the "common threat" in Germany and UK, because it's just a slower approach of Socialism and regression! The Fabian Society which was Socialist to a core and others critized the Soviet Union, yes, but so did everyone who could not let himself lynched. That could easily happen, cause misinformation or relativism was also fought by liberals. But just anti-socialists were as radical about why and Socialism always lead to failure and financial gain for those who benefit from it, the political class. That's why England, for example their Social Health Care system, and other things are complete trash, if you know other systems, but unable to reform in a non-standing world. That's why UKs mixed system is losing in a free market, just interesting for those who can benefit from the system. It's hard for the political right side, which is to be supposed anti-socialist, to commit that most of British influenced theories are complete trash, fictive or wishful thinking and also propaganda. Even Orwell, who put his own socialists thoughts in perspective, critizing mostly everything Socialist, had to critize it through 1984 again. In the end, socialism is just a conspiracy theory worth nothing.
Probably better said, "I'm looking at you, Lenin." Since the point was that the Soviet Union's ideology was not Marxism but Marxism-Leninism. Marx regarded industrial workers as the sole progressive revolutionary class and had contempt for peasants as backward. Lenin altered Marxism to include the peasantry as a progressive revolutionary class, equal to the industrial workers -- hence the sickle being added to the already long-standing socialist symbol of the hammer (such as the Arm & Hammer logo).
Thank you. It's always interesting to hear things from someone who lives there. The comment about Vienna - said a lot. Everything's always a lot more complicated than it seems. .
Thank you for the video. Seen from Czech perspective, it seems to me that, before 1918, the German speaking Austrians called themselves Germans, not Austrians. This is to support your explanation, how the Austrian identity was only developping. If I remember correctly, I believe I read a text by Robert Musil (K.u.K. inpersonated) from shortly after ww1, where he quite harshly rejected to call himself an Austrian, which he felt maybe even humiliating.
> Thank you for the video. Seen from Czech perspective, it seems to me that, before 1918, > the German speaking Austrians called themselves Germans, not Austrians. yeah, as far as I remember that was also the statement in the official Austrian history of the monarchy in the volume on nationalities in the monarchy, I didn't have access to it when I did the video, which I think was a bit of a spontaneous affair.
I would say the proper phrase is "it was embraced mostly for the promise of internal stability that had been sorely lacking in the previous 19 years"...
Erstens: Hallo Landsmann von einem Sozialisten aus Wien! (First: Hello countryman from a socialist from Vienna), this video could be summarized under the phrase “be careful what you wish for”, and it is always refreshing to hear an actual historian talk about such things, because only too often, people A) forget that decisions are never made in hindsight, and that B) reality is always how it is, and never how you'd like it to be. What I particularly like about this video is the strong hint to how absolutely broken and divided everything back then was, how everybody worked against everybody else, because nobody trusted anyone else, and you'd hardly ever of all people take responsibility for _yourself_ for the current mess you're in. I mean, I was unaware of my predecessors attitude towards the rural population (“Bauernschädeln”), but it does not surprise me, and to this day, there is this divide between Vienna and the rest. I for instance grew up with the fact in mind that Vienna has only about 20% of the population of the country, but yields more than 25% of its economic output. Doesn't sound too bad, does it? _Unless you realize_ that, without “the other parts of Austria”, the big city would simply be unable to do that. Cooperation is always better than division, and I just hope we do not need another … calamity? … to realize it. Oh, wait, there's the divide in the U.S., there is Brexit, there is Syria,… DARN IT!
Nope, there is still a big Southern German minority there, and nationalistic feelings are still strong in some of these people. There was even a resistance movement after WW2 that commited various terror attacks until the 1980s, I think.
Also, at this point, Südtirol has a large degree of autonomy within Italy that it would most probably not have as part of Austria. As long as that stays in place, and the Schengen borders stay open, there's little reason to change the status quo.
Part of the current government in Austria want Südtirol back. Südtirol on the other hand doesn't really want back. They have a large degree of autonomy and are doing massively better than the rest of Itlay and are on par with Austria. I don't think they are willing to lose that. Btw the Germans in Südtirol aren't a minority, they are a bit over 60% of the population.
Did the Germans maintain Austrian units after Anschluss and just rename them or completely reorganize everything? Were there any fully Austrian Heer/SS divisions?
From what I know, full divisions of Austrian units were incorporated directly into the Wehrmacht. I think the 45th Heer originally was the 4th Army in Austria however smaller units were added to creating new divisions. Germany had a couple of mixed national divisions I believe.
Hi there. Had been watching your video for over two years and it's really been a wonderful learning experience. Just wondering, would you mind talk about Soviet barricade area troops?Especially, their battle order, equipment, formation and battle effectiveness. Thanks!
Little nitpicking: It wasn't the treaty of Versailles that prohibited the name "Deutsch-Österreich" and unification between Germany and Austria, but the treaty of Saint Germain. To be precise it was Article 88 of the treaty. Off topic: Have you worked with the Landesverteidigungsakademie in Vienna before?
well, I mention the "treaties" (plural) and that one from Saint Germain, but yeah, maybe I used the Plural there. Yeah, I noticed the irony today with article number. Off topic: no, as far as I know the only "professionals" that "recognize me" are from the US/UK.
I studied this period intensley in grad school, wrote my master's thesis about it. I wouldn't say Anschluss was really popular before it happened in 1938. Sure, it's hard to say exactly since there weren't any opinion polls or free elections, but the socialist leadership, jailed by Schussnig, was ready to fight and support the country against Hitler. Thing was, Schussnig found his guys in the clerical-fascist right-wing dictatorship had gone over to the Nazis. The Nazis ended up sending Schussnig to one of his own concentration camps. If you really want a good read on this, and an exhaustive one, check out "Austria, From Hapsburg to Hitler" ny Charles A. Gulick, particularly volume I.
can only tell you what I learned in university and it's pretty clear that all names included Deutsch/Deutschland in 1918. Additionally, our academy of sciences put out a book on the Nationalities of the Monarchy and explicitly notes that there is no "Austrian" but only "German" in the Empire. WTF? From Hapsburg to Hitler is from 1948... seriously, that book is probably full of the "victim"-narrative "we" spread after the war. Wouldn't be too surprised if that stuff is totally outdated and biased as crazy. Similar to many early historians taking all the claims from German Generals at face value.
Military History Vlogs No, it was written by an American economics professor from Texas who taught at UCal Berkeley, so I don't think he had any axe to grind. Kurt Schussnig was that sort, putting forth that "we were the first victim's of the Nazis pity us..." for the rest of his days, see his book Austrian Requiem. He ended up teaching at St. Louis University in Missouri. I still found it an interesting, if biased read. I particularly remember a line about "when Dollfuss and I were in Seefeld for the national ski championships..." I thought "hey, I've been to Seefeld, there were only two hotels in that town, I may have stayed in the same room as a not-so-famous dead guy!" 😆
Well, I meant that he very likely had only limited sources and at the same time everyone in Austria was working to establish the victim narrative. Great example is the talk Ferguson had with Sam Harris, where he tried to use a Hamburg archive to get a picture of the hyperinflation and it wasn't possible since they had omitted most stuff and/or were rather ignorant.
and as for the socialist leadership wanting to fight hitler i highly doupt that as their most prominent figure Karl Renner activly encouraged to vote for the anschluss (which gave him the oportunity to stay home for the whole war unlike pretty much any other politican)
Re-watched this after a while and I really have to wonder why so few people have watched it compared to most of the other videos. Also; yeaahh Vienna is my Wunschheimat...
> why so few people have watched it compared to most of the other videos. I think you are mistaken 65K for this channel is quite a lot, maybe you confuse this with my main channel. > yeaahh Vienna is my Wunschheimat... nobody is perfect
I'm curious if anyone nowadays who wants a union with Germany in Austria and vice-versa. Imho all Germans, and not only them, should live in one country, but that's my opinion.
The whole discussion has been made obsolete by the European Union. As I see you are Bulgarian one can ask, who wants Macedonia to join Bulgaria? Or for Americans, why does Canada not join the US? The general reply would always be "what for?".
@@michaelrenper796 The European union is temporary. Not that countries will last forever. Just a little bit more. Most want that North Macedonia joins Bulgaria. Or at least most in the place that I live. Since the failed Comintern project isn't joining the famed and renowned EU any time soon. And lastly I fail to see the connection between the fabled EU, Bulgaria and North Macedonia on the one hand and Canada and the USA on the other.
Quick question. Do you teach at any school or do you do presentations somewhere? I'd love to see them. I'm sure a man of your knowledge does something with it(other then presenting it on youtube)
I don't know much about Austrian politics. At the macro level, it seems reasonable that Austria is too small to be economically viable in difficult global economic situations, aggravated by the lack seaport access, so it seems like a good idea to make a customs union with a larger country, more so when the head of state was a native Austrian. I recall reading somewhere (sorry no source) that Baltic Germans reintegrated into the Third Reich were not particularly enthusiastic to be drafted into the Wehrmacht. I do not recall what the assessment of Sudetenland german's performance as soldiers. I think some of your other videos mention Austrian divisions. I gather these were up to par with native German divisions? This alone would be a positive because Austro-Hungary did not fight particularly well in WWI. Could this be blamed on an officer corps with too many privileged high nobility? One article mentioned an Austrian support unit that recruited many village girls as nurses for support a hospital unit even though they had no training to be useful in this regard, though many contracted VD. There was a conversation that Manstein had with von Rundstedt asking why he (Rundstedt) had no great coat(?). Rundstedt replied that he did was not going to buy one at that time, considering at his age, that probably would not get enough use out it to be worthwhile.
By the anti Vienna statement, do you mean we dont like getting told what to do by the government? But why being anti Vienna? Austrians love Vienna and millions of tourists from all over the world love it even more...
ummm..... if you're going to reply to a question, you should at least answer it. I dont think he was looking for you to try to unhurt his feelings instead. I was curious too, then when I clicked read replies, I see a modern German apollogist reply instead of a factual based answer. Is it really that bad in Europe? The German apollogist mentality? Its not a big deal to say "Many of us dont like the many of governments decisions in Austria, so I added it as a joke" or "There is a running joke that Viennians are snobby." or "Vienna has a bad reputation for having a lot of snobs, so I added it for humor" It would have been a lot more satisfying and informative than "Oh sorry! Yes I retract my statement, SO SORRY SIR! Terribly sorry! Good day! SORRY!" I understood it as an unserious joke, I love your jokes, they're so very subtle and amusing. :)
But Falco said all of Vienna was on heroin. He even made a short audio-documentary about it: ruclips.net/video/uuR3xwYATbM/видео.html Now I don't know what to believe... :0
I'm back to nitpick your pronunciation (in the hope of helping you). When you say "conservatives" say it like "Konservenglas". You seem to rush through the word, stretch it out. "Konserventives" - > "Conservatives". Hope I could help.
The difference between the Austrofascists and the Nazis were mostly superficial, but fascists have a tendency to be willing to commit violence over superficial things, but more importantly for power. They ultimately had the same goal on the end: Anschluss with Nazi Germany.
Excellent insight! But you didn't disprove that it was voted for. Like you said the vast majority supported it, even if they came to regret it in hindsight. Just because it was a kind of fairytale doesn't mean that's not what the majority wanted 21st the time of the actual vote.
> But you didn't disprove that it was voted for. because there is nothing to disprove about it. Was the vote manipulated by various means: of course, but I have little doubt that even without any manipulation it would have been a landslide, just by looking at the previous sentiments in the Empire and also the 1st Republic.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Ok then it's not "a myth that sometimes comes from Germany" right? It's not a myth then? It's fact, they would have won in a landslide even without rigging?
it is an oversimplification if one implies Austrians voted for an Anschluss because of Hitler. I am rather sure, I made this clear in the video, but either you didn't pay attention or you want to troll. I did this video more than 1 year ago.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I'm not trolling. Clearly the Anschluss was voted in by the people of Austria. And its not a myth. I was just confused by your conflicting statements is all.
well, I would have to rewatch the video to find what your issue might be or not, but since back then there were no major issues, I don't think there was a major error nor conflicting statement. Although, my usual approach is to bring forward several factors and view-points, since most people simplify and aspects like the Anschluss are quite complicated even if one just looks at 1918 to 1938, which is already very condensed. I can remember only one guy that had some old Austrian myths that most Austrians were against the Anschluss, but his info was based on asking people post-war... yet, since he brought that point up as an argument that would not make sense, if I had claimed that Austrians were against the Anschluss.
I read somewhere that shortly after the war Czechoslovakia was sending some aid (vehicles, food etc...) to Austria, can't remember where, was hoping you might have read somewhere about it, ah well was worth a try :)
Austrians don't like taking orders from Berlin...after centuries of Habsburgs in Vienna trying to give orders to the rest of the Germans! This video is nice added context and I don't want to lecture an Austrian about Austria. Still, I think none of that period makes sense without an understanding of the HRE and how a "German" nation formed in the first place.
Wasn't Mussolini against the Anchluss because he was trying to build better relations with Austria. I believe he even threatened war with Germany if they annexed Austria. However he stepped back after England and France ignored it
That would be interesting, and perhaps a learning experience of how to do things peacefully.(or at least what didnt work) I've heard some very sad things : (
Wasn't there a border conflict with Hungary sometime after the First World War? I read about it in the magazine Military History Quarterly some years ago, I forgot most of the details in the magazine but I do know that the Socialist Democrats played a large part in Austria during the war.
schizoidboy I believe so, while the communist Bela Kun was running Hungary. I couldn't find a reference to it on wikipedia however, so maybe it was a really small scale thing?
There was some conflict around Ödenburg/Sopron but that had been resolved by 1924. The Austrian-Hungarian border was almost the only border in the former Empire that was _not_ contested by anyone after that.
yeah, I agree on bpb is a good source in general, although, I need to add: except when it comes to computer games. At least the last time I took a look there.
Haven't researched on that subject there (yet), but good to know that (my guess) they have the early 2000s conservative idea about them, i.e. the "video games cause violence"-trope. I used the bpb for political, social sciences and historical topics and the results were between mildly usable to very good, and quite actual time-wise. But of course it has to be kept in mind that it is subject to the federal ministry of the interior. Everyone has an agenda. :) But their stuff is either free or hilariously cheap, I have quite the stockpile from them (well, they reside in my universitie's city, too...)
yeah, I had quite many books of them too during my university time. When I started out with this channel, I was actually looking at their catalogue again, but didn't order anything. Not sure if they stopped republishing "regular books" with different covers for a few bucks. I noticed their prices etc. increased compared to 2003(?).
Regular price is mostly 4,50 € and the larger books (~500 pages) come in at 7 € ("Schriftenreihe"). A couple of months ago, for example, they released the book "Mehr Reichtum, mehr Armut" from H. Kaelble for 4,50 € while the "regular" publisher wants to have 19 € for the same book. I think their prices are reasonable, maybe you want to take a look, they have a military section too, though I never read anything from there yet. Edit: Providing link is more easy. www.bpb.de/shop/buecher/schriftenreihe/136219/militaer
I can't imagine, that the catholic church was for the 'Anschluss' because the Nazi were animies of them. May be the one or the other naive or german-nationalist priest did like the Nazi. Who advised the Austrians to vote for the so called 'Anschluss' was Karl Renner, the leader of the socialdemocratic party in Austria. The problem was, that during the austrofascist dictatorship the nazi and the leftists were together prisoners in the detention camps of the austrofascist regime and so often they did know each other. Therefore, the first time, after the Nazi had occupied Austria, the leftists had not such problems like the conservatives. You also can't call the fake election for or against the 'Anschluss' a real democratic election, because the result was decided in advance. Or do you think, the Nazi would have left Austria in the case of a negative result? A lot of people, where the Nazi expected, they would vote against them, were not allowed to vote. This election was so fair and democratic like an election in the old Soviet union or in todays China. Also a lot of Austrians did not like the Nazi. The Tote Gebirge (Dead Mountains) could never become occupied by the Nazi, because the resistance of Austrian partisans, also in eastern Styria were Austrian partisans, in Vienna were resistance groups (05 - you can see this numbers till today in the wall of the Stefansdom [St. Stephan's cathedral] in Vienna, the partisans of Tito in former Yougoslavia had own Austrian units with the Austrian flag on their uniforms and so on. But unfortunately the history of the Austrian resistance against the Nazi is nearly till today a taboo subject. After the WW2 the Austrian politicians wanted the votes of the Austrian Nazis and so they denied this part of our history - they didn't want to offend the former Nazi. It's a big shame, that till today in our schools the history of the Austrian resistance is not part of the lessons. Only really dedicated teachers teach this issue.
> I can't imagine, that the catholic church was for the 'Anschluss' because your imagination is seriously lacking, a) it is historical fact and b) besides that the catholic church most of the time tried to work out a "co-existence" with various regimes, in this case it did not work out. > You also can't call the fake election for or against the 'Anschluss' a real democratic election never did, pay attention > But unfortunately the history of the Austrian resistance against the Nazi is nearly till today a taboo subject. what? de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokumentationsarchiv_des_%C3%B6sterreichischen_Widerstandes you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Then explain please, why you tell about the election to the Anschluss in a way, if it would have been a normal democratic election. You tried to explain why so many Austrians have voted for the Anschluss.... what's that?! You can forget this so-called election, because it was a fake. You stultify yourself. To the Austrian resistance - I didn't learn anything about it in the highschool. My father told it and he also explained me, why it's not teached. My children also did hear nearly nothing about the Austrian resistance in history in their schools - so I told them. That the catholic church always has tried to arrange with the different actual powers that's a fact. But it was also one of the issues of the nazi to attac the church - so it wasn't possible to get a bearable arrangement for the church with the nazi. Therefore it's also documented in the DÖW, that there was also a catholic resistance.
Well, one of the reasons that made Austrian identity and nation creation possible is aiming to not affiliated with NAZI Germany so they won't be grabbed by Soviets. ;-)
Germans always dreamt of a greater german solution which was not possible because of the two emperor (Hohenzollern / Habsburger). So 1871 they just united the german tribes without Austria. But like Saxons, Bavarians, etc. Austrians are still Germans. And I never felt like I am in a different country when i visited Austria coming from Bavaria-Germany.
Why don't you like Vienna? I assume that there's nothing wrong with the city and you mean the politicians, right? In that case you probably should't like any capital in the world, they're all the same...
its more like a countryside vs the big city thing. Vienna is ruled by leftwing partys, and some say people from vienna are uppish and they think they are more educated, cosmopolitan. The countryside on the other side is considered to be too traditional, backward, old-fashioned. Both sides think the other side has no idea about their problems... I think the situation is similar to many countries/states. (Bavaria, Germany, Great Britain, France)
@Aranubius that classic effect of brainwashing people that their education makes them smarter. Smarter than anyone who didnt go to their school, no matter what,even if they didnt learn anything. Capitalist marketing.
I liked his hairstyle before, it looked more german, though I suppose a changing hairline can effect options. His beard looks like he could do that pointy evil villian look if he tried to. 😅 For now it looks pretty sporty. :)
Pretty much all Austrians don't think so. And even Germany is a conglomerate of different cultures, even in some federal states there are much different dialects and cultural differences bordering on hate (NEVER ask a Franconian if he is a Bavarian, ffs).
Well, obviously you think this way, as you are for the Anschluss. Well, sorry to tell you but there is virtually nobody thinking about this in Austria or Germany. The last party for unification in Austria was disbanded in 1988.
Well, it's a leftover from the HRE. Germany was only unified, without Austria, in 1871. Until then you weren't a German, but a Hannoveranian, Hessian, Saxon or Bavarian. Only in the 19th century mainly because of the French occupation started the thinking of all these countries as being German to gain ground. This is also the major reason why modern Germany is a federal republic, with a lot of the governmental power in the hands of the federal states that are often based on the old borders from the 19th century or even earlier. The cultural differences between especially northern Germany (southern not that much, but it depends) and Austria are quite big in some regards, religion plays a part there, too: most of northern Germany is protestant, Austria almost completely catholic. This extends to the language, while don't have a lot of problems understanding people from Vienna or Salzburg, the further south and east you go the less I understand the "German", up to the point where I am virtually unable to make sense of any word the people say...and I have been in Austria quite a few times over the years. Also I think MHV mentioned he does not like the Austrian work ethic and considers himelf being more "Prussian" than the average Austrian. On top of that Prussia and the northern German states fought quite a few wars against Austria most famous the 7 Years War, sometimes considered the first world war (Prussia and UK were allies, with the Electorate of Brunswick-Hanover being part of the UK) and the 2nd German War. At this point England and Wales had been united for I think 500 years, and Scotland with England for 270 years? So there is a huge difference in years to forget about the past, and still there is a strong independence movement in Scotland. Especially in Germany, some history remains unforgotten for quite a long time...
so it was sarcasm? or a desire to take the city? Not totally clear on your meaning. The war of islamic expansion had come to my mind first, but then I thought of the alliance in the first world war
Well, he said at 6:20 "Let's face it, who like vienna? I certainly don't." So yes, my comment was a form of sarcasm. Like, at least someone was interested in Vienna.
soweit ich weiß, war das Bundesheer nicht mobilisiert, dementsprechend wäre jeglicher Widerstand wohl relativ schnell unterdrückt worden. Über die Ausstattung mit Panzerabwehrwaffen weiß ich leider nichts, aber die Wehrmacht kam mit Panzern.
Das Bundesheer hatte einige 4.7cm Panzerabwehrgeschütze M35 Böhler. Holland setzte diese z.B. gegen Deutschland ein. Ein Bericht über das Bundesheer vor 1938 wäre toll.
Not true. My grandfather felt 100% Austrian and he was a staunch Nationalist; though Jewish. We will never know the percentage of Austrians who supported the Nazis because there was never a real vote but it was a lot. I have a letter from him addressed to the Nazi authorities in which he says I am an Austrian citizen.
A lot of whitewash going on here! Austrians of all segments of society we're suffering from nostalgia for the greatness of Empire lost. Austrians watched their prestige decline for 70 years after the 1866 Austro-Prussian war when that Austro-Hungarian empire was defeated by one Germanic principality. In the same time period that the US grew from an isolated republic to a nascent world power, when a confederation of German principalities became an empire and sustained a similar defeat in WW1 without the total dismemberment suffered by themselves. Germany on the rise to empire and glory was an irresistible draw.
BonJoviworstbandever Austrians Are germans, because Austrians have Same ancestors as Bavarians and this Tribe was one of the 7 Germanic tribes which became what is now Austria bavaria saxony etc. Austrians Are ethnic, historical, cultural germans. We sare over 1500 years of Common History and unification
How can you not like vienna? The germans are the only people who hate austria got suck in still nazi german for 3 year never met a nice germany lots of nice people living in germany, in austria most are nice I love vienna I only wish they would bring back the border
It's really something how Hitler was consistently indifferent about it despite all his nationalist rhetoric. Willing to go to war over every other German-inhabited area outside the Reich borders, but always wrote off South Tyrol as an Italian possession, even when, such as 1943, he was in a position to formally annex it.
South Tyrol was a small region in the south of Austria given over to Italy after the first world war. Italy had been promised it as part of the package of territory it was to receive in exchange for entering the war. The Italians were said to "deserve" it based on the idea that rivers and mountains form the "natural borders" of countries. And because of this, Italy deserved all the territory right up to the start of the passes that cross the Alps. Italy ruled the area badly and attempted to convert the people there into Italians. Anti-fascist parties in germany tended in the 1920s to complain about Germans in South Tyrol but Germans nowhere else in Europe. The nazis tended to complain about German minorities everywhere but South Tyrol. The issue in Germany became a proxy for supporting or opposing Italian Fascism and Mussolini. Hitler's view was that Tyrol was tiny, territorially insignificant, that other areas (poland, Czechoslovakia, France) were a higher priority which offered more and that the issue could be resolved best through good relations with Italy. He also said that those talking about South Tyrol were simply using it as a proxy to attack Mussolini's regime. Due to the controversy within Germany over the issue, he wrote his views about it at length. There was an agreement in 1939 which encouraged the German population to leave South Tyrol for resettlement within Germany. In 1943, the Germans made South Tyrol part of (Greater) Germany for administrative and governmental purposes. But technically never annexed it. Though it could be claimed that the government arrangements made were a de-facto annexation. In 1945, it was decided by the US to keep South Tyrol as a part of Italy. It was assumed that now that the "liberated" Italy would treat the area better. The Italians were also able to convince everyone that autonomy for the area was not necessary. But the Italians went back to attempting to assimilate the area immediately leading to political problems. There was trouble over the issue interationally for 20 years. Then around 1969, Italy was convinced to grant South Tyrol "autonomy". Then after 20 more years, they had effectively reached full autonomy. Austria and Italy both being in the European Union meant that when the border controls came down, South Tyrol re-integrated economically and even to a degree politically with the rest of the Tyrol. Its still a part of Italy. But a part of Italy that operates at arms length from Rome.
@@IrishCarney Memel is a different situation. After the war, it had been detached from Germany and occupied by France but with no certain plan as to what would happen to it (other than it would under no circumstances be given back to Germany). The German government at the time (1922-23) actually supported and encouraged the Lithuanian takeover of memel. They preferred Lithuania to have it rather than it be given to Poland or that French occupation might continue forever. The nationalists (nazi and otherwise) never seemed to make much of an issue out of it until 1934 (or at least I've never seen anything that suggests that they did). Until that year, Germany was a major trading partner of Lithuania. In 1934, the dictator in Lithuania conducted a series of mass arrests in Memel and effectively ended the relationship with Germany. At that point, the Nazis became interested in Memel as an issue and it became a big part of their agenda. By 1938, Hitler was saying suddenly that it was his #2 priority after the Czech lands. Lithuania on the other hand was, after the break with Germany, was pretty much surrounded by states that were hostile to it. In 1938, Poland basically handed them a list of demands and threatened invasion if they were not accepted within 48 hours. Poland even had a backdoor deal with the Germans to allow the Germans to take over memel if Poland went to war with Lithuania. By 1939, the situation in Lithuania was so desperate that they were willing to agree to anything. It was very similar to South Tyrol in that nationalist principles took a back seat to foreign policy. When Lithuania was friendly, they didn't care much about Memel. But when it was unfriendly they suddenly cared about it. If Germany had other options for allies and had turned hostile to Italy, Hitler would probably have started making an issue out of the South Tyrol.
What would be your translation of the word 'Anschluss' to English? Translated through the Swedish word, 'Anslutning', it would be 'Connection'. Which in my opinion seems quite fitting!
In dutch that be aansluiting. Translating to joining up or joining in. If its vowl. Conection fits if you say that connection or the connection. But i think the action of the austian state joins up. Is more accurate
I'd like to hear more about the adaptations the Austrian Bundesheer made in the year and a half between the Anschluss and the outbreak of WWII. How it integrated into the mobilization system of the German Wehrmacht, etc. The interwar Austrian army included no Gebirgs divisions, for example, but after Anschluss, two such divisions were organized. I'd like to hear how that reoganization proceeded.
Yeah and even more. Did Berlin scatter Austrians across the Heer to prevent them being concentrated and dangerous? Or segregate them away from the rest of the Heer like second-class citizens?
RonJohn63 - definitely! Not as bad as major German cities but very close - this weekend alone there were several knife attacks... Watch alternative media if u wanna learn more - I don't wanna start a current political discussion on this history channel...
falanglao01 I call BS. Data for Vienna from the statistics of the General Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt): Murder (including attempted murder) StGB §75: 67 (2010) - 59 (2013) - 57 (2016). Population has increased (from MA13, diePresse): 1,689,995 (2010) - 1,741,246 (2013) - 1,867,960 (2016) Unfortunately the fraction of total morons has also climbed: from 21.6% in 2010 to 26.0% in 2015. How about you inform yourself properly before shouting utter nonsense?
I would like to thank you. I am an archaeologist, and a student of history. Your channel always gives a new point of view, and new knowledge. Keep it up, I'm a fan.
The teacher I had in German said that Wien was nowadys too large for a small country like Austria, since its no longer this capitol of a great empire and centre for the German speaking world. But I think I disagree, I mean Copenhagen is not much smaller despite Denmark only got 5,7 million people. And I guess that history could easily had taken another turn, in the past and Wien and Magdeburg would have been the biggest cities in a unified German empire today. Berlin would never had grown as much as it have without the Prussian glory, and Magdeburg was roughly equal in size to Wien before the sacking during the 30-years war. Its interesting to think how even more massive this city would have become if a Austro-German empire (plus Switzerland) had been created.
After Austria lost the war the people were heavy suffering because of the econmic consequences by loosing the crown lands because the rest which was left were just Vienna and mainly poor mountain-farmers to be honest so it was a economic disaster especially for Vienna which was simply too big for the rest of the this now small and now just mountainous country ....and politically it was divided in many ways. There were the conservatives which were very close with the also political influencal catholic church (by saying who votes for the socialst will end in hell and when they will gain power we all end in hell) and on the other side the socialist which were mostly atheists who "preached" against the catholic church or at least agnostics. So there were a relgious controversion + a political controversion. The socialists were strong in Vienna and some cities because there were the factory-workers and the conservatives in the agricultural rest of Austria. But in the question about the annexion to Germany it was divided too but totally mixed up. The people who voted for conservatives were divided as well as the people who voted for the socialists. Even many families were divided by this question. So it was a really messed up situation in those times...... Just to give you a bit clearer picture....... And about the term "Austro-Faschismus"....Well, that´s a typical Austrian thing I would say.... because it is right to say that it wasn´t really "Fascim" what the conservatives did after they staged a coup to get in power simply because of their political agenda nothing wrong about that but on the otherside their methods weren´t different to the methods of the fascists at all they had also their goon squads and they also built a one-party-system to rule the country and they put the political opposition in jail and some of them were sentenced to death.... so how would you call something like this by acting like a fascist without being one???? This is a very difficult question for every historian I would say, isn´t it. So after struggeling around one historian probably said "Well this seems to be that this is - "our unique" - and special form of fascism because no one has done something like that before so lets call it Austro-Fascism to end this debate because my wife wants me to come home earlier today because it´s her mum´s 90th birthday and probably but most likely her last one"
Liked yet I think this topic should be more looked into, to what level were Austrians integrated to Germany? To what level did Austria and Austrians contribute to German war effort? How high did Austrians get both on the military ladder and political ladder?
There is another myth about the "Anschluss". Why is the connection of Austria important for today's national identity as an Austrian? Because after the german defeat, the Austrians decided to slip into the role of victims. They presented themselves as the first victims of Nazi Germany; the first country occupied by Nazi Germany. The pictures and films of masses of enthusiastic Austrians about the Anschluss would have been Nazi propaganda. Only a minority have been supported the Anschluss. That is just as embarrassing as the mendacious self-defense claim of the German population that they were not Nazis; only a minority. And the allied occupation soldiers were very astonished not to find any Nazis Germany anymore! Germans and Austrians de- nacified themselves with a snap of a finger. Amazing how similar Austrians and Germans were back then. :-)
From the European perspective, Fascism is certainly right wing, since Europe defines left vs right largely along nationalist vs classist lines. From an American perspective, it's actually left wing, since we're Americans are pretty much all nationalists and left vs right is principally defined along collectivist vs individualist lines. Fascism is very collectivist and shares a lot of policy and philosophy with the Progressive movement, especially the early 20th century Progressive movement. It's left wing in America, right wing in Europe. All about definitions.
I adore your accent and your excellent English which I am only assuming is a "second" language for you. My guess is that you know quite a few languages. I get a lot out of your content and while initially didn't think I would like not having visual additions, I find myself more able to focus on your lecture without video distractions. Keep the content coming. I wish you great success
What we never learned in school was that Mr Schuschnigg wanted to do a poll about it on the 13. or 14th of March, but germany preassured him not to and to resign. Then they marched in, and later when they did the poll, they managed to open up some factories again beforehand, so more people had work. Additionally not everybody was allowed to vote, furthermore it was no anonymus vote. (people knew that bad things would happen to those who vote against) Still there where lots of sympathisants but not to the degree the outcome of the poll said.
mit einem Haufen "Bauernschädeln" (starrsinnige Menschen) kann man keine sozialistische Revolution machen - mid am haufen bauernschedln kau ma ka sozialistische Revolution mochn
@Military History Vlogs wirklich jetzad? Noch mehr Wien-Gehasse? Man kanns auch übertreiben, sag ich jetzt mal als Oberösterreicher. Trotzdem gutes Video
Actually Marx noted that the traditions for common land ownership in Russia were also a good start point for revolution. However it's true that the USSR had to develope first.
Actually Marx wrote that the revolution should start anywhere other than in Russia. His ideal places were England, France or Germany, for obvious reasons. You need a long capitalist phase to create wealth, before you can redistribute this wealth. Russia went from rule of soldiers to rule of the people (supposedly), without having a rule of merchants period, which was very necessary.
Marxism is not about dogma - Marx was wrong in hus assessment of the potential state of the working class in the capitalist core. That's why only more oppressive, backward countries turned revolutionary. This was expanded upon by Lenin and Mao :).
Wait are the communist admitting that they need to steal wealth because they can't generate their own? And that they need a capitalist phase first? I mean, you do realize that wealth runs out, don't you?
It's not about the wealth, but concentration of production and capital. It is easiest to do it through capitalism, but then you risk capitalist taking power (how they did everywhere else). That's why NEP was so short-lived.
No. Communism in the Soviet Union was essentially modern slavery. It was a massive exploitation of the population. Like, people worked to generate resources like grain, ores, fuel, but the state essentially took everything. The state then traded everything very profitably on the international market, but the people never got anyhting of it. Just their flat in a multistory building, and the daily ration. Most hard currency was paid to international firms who developed petrochemical infrastructure etc. Then there was stupidly high investment in the defence sector, in the order of 50% of GDP.
Last time I was this early, he still had more hair above his face than below it...
Bismarck - Military Aviation History Damn Bismarck, you always nail it with your "Last time I was this early..."
It would be interesting to get your point of view about Anschluss after the re-unification with East Germany. Would there be any merit in it? BTW, I'm a big fan. ;-)
*laughs in german tank engine*
That’s fine as long as you two do a video of Polish PZ.11 vs bf109 in 1939
"you can't have a socialist revolution with a bunch of peasants"
China: "hold my beer"
"you can't have a socialist revolution with a bunch of peasants"
Mao: kills millions, then dies himself, then it's on to capitalism.
Mao's revolution was not a real or successful revolution as it did not reach the goals as they are outlined by Marx. The "success" can only be perceived there if you consider Chinese Communists consolidating power and authority. Since huge numbers of people died and in the end the survivors didn't live better quality lives, it is a failed socialist revolution.
China's revolution was the very opposite of the socialist revolution conceived by Marx. Marx saw the rise of industry during his lifetime and saw that its conclusion was the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. In 1920s-1940s China:
1. Very little proletariat even existed; mainly there were just peasants;
2. There was supposed to be communist control of capital, but there was hardly any capital in existence in the country to be redistributed;
3. Marx would have envisioned socialism to be the end state to be pursued by the *most* industrialised countries (remember Marx was German, one of the richer countries globally); China in the 1920s-1949 was one of the poorest places in the world; (Marx would also have scoffed at the prospect of sociaism in Russia, Europe's least industrialised major country);
4. Communist revolution would overthrow capitalism. But there was no capitalism to overthrow in China.
Interestingly no successful communist revolution has ever taken place in a country with even basic levels of freedom. Every successful communist revolution took place against heavily repressive regimes, (Tsarist Russia), some of which had feudal characteristics (China), or against a repressive colonial power (Vietnam). Turns out people tend not to revolt against *actual* free capitalist regimes that respected people's economic rights. They revolt in the name of communism only when they are against a very *crony* and rigged system. Alas, many western countries have increasingly gone down that path...is there any surprise that so many young people unashamedly praise socialism?
So, transylvanian, what makes you such an expert on Marxism? At least the appearance of one? You seem to be very easily altering the definition of terms and Marxist ideas.
transylvanian Yet as I already showed no free capitalist country has ever been successfully overthrown by socialist revolution. Welfare was demanded postwar because the war economy was inherently anti-libertarian in its workings and required state coercion on a large degree (mass conscription etc.) Free capitalism was in a sense suspended during the war, and it was during this time of coercion that socialist movements became huge. Also it is important to note that welfare =/= socialism, at least not socialism as Marx would understand it. This new modern definition of socialism is very far off from what it used to be. Supposedly "socialist" places like denmark are not at all socialist in the original sense of the word.
last time I was this early, Austria was still part of the holy roman empire
How was the internet before the Napoleonic Wars ?
fast travelling pigeons.
@@michaelmoorrees3585 At that time, the worldwide web was neither worldwide nor a web.
which was neither Holy nor an Empire
@@anaghashyam9845 😂😂😂
So much of your content has replay value. I'll definitely watch this a few times.
Like at 7:19 ? 😅
Interesting. Somehow the internal turmoil in Austria during the 1930's has somehow slipped through my radar. There is so much information and studies about the German internal power struggle in those years that most of the other European nations in similar conditions have sort of faded in the background.
StPaul76 I found it all very interesting. It's not very well covered, not like every detail of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. I'd always thought Austria was some innocent peaceful little republic that got stomped flat by the Nazis -- nope, not so much.
There are plenty of studies about internal power struggles in 1930's Europe. The difference is that in Germany/Austria it did lead into a different societal system, alongside Italy. Other famous one is the Spanish Civil War.
There was lots of friction between different ideologies during the time, but the difference is that either those were suppressed (USSR) or did not lead to revolution or any real change (fascist Lapua movement in Finland did gain some support but it was put down already in 1932, after that it broke down to fringe elements with no power). Thus only notable ones are mentioned in schools or media are mostly Germany, Italy and Spain. The rest aren't that history-changing and thus you have to dig deeper to find info about them.
@@Unknown1355 The societal system wasn't changed much, but the overall fights were also fought in the streets and these radicalisation lead to civil wars or conditions for such a thing. Other nations, the so called little states in Europe, never had a real autonomy, but were controlled by the British Empire like Poland or Jugoslavia (especially Belgrade/Serbia). Even if these countries also were targeted by the Communist revolutionaries and agents, this didn't lead towards different public rules, cause the overall appliction of their respective laws wouldn't had any effects cause they were too little, unrespected by their own citizens, who didn't like that the Army was in charge and controlled them as a defacto British legion. These countries inhabitants began to think themselves as individual beings, what made it also difficult for the socialists to gain something from it. That's why Germany was greeted well after the War broke out, what nobody saw as Germany but Englands fault on the continent. Germany and Austria had to develop a reactionary movement in the 20's, same as Italy, Spain, France against a targeted war.
Austria-Hungary was destroyed mostly by the Americans, and Socialist coups took place in Germany and Austria after 1918! In the aftermath, Germany annexed Austria. The word annexion is a clear term and fitted perfectly for this, because Austria as a Nation got just eridicated through this. That's the hardest a nation could get. Poland for example was a Generalgouvernement, what just was a organisational term for a non existing country under occupation. And the protectorat of the own Czech Nation state including their army got protection for that case. However, the Austrians had no possibility to fight against the Germans, cause their defacto Fascist leaders in contrast to the National Socialists leaders were removed through assassinations and attemps. Hitlers thinking of Germany was that of a central dictatorship through a party, not that of federally working states.
I wouldn't mind seeing a vid on Austria during WW2, seriously lacking knowledge there and you provide the good stuff. :)
might happen, got a LoC book with some articles on it.
well there was no austria remember :)
I read a book a few years called "jackboot" which looked at the Wehrmacht troops in WWII. It was unusual in that it differentiated the Austrian units from the German.
But the real question is:
Who likes Vienna?
SantiFiore only the viennese
SantiFiore I love their sausages.
MrRenegadeshinobi Don't let the Schutzstaffel know that, they may pay you a visit if that happens.
It's like Paris without the French. What's not to like?
Ultravox?
The Germans in Austria had once been the unquestioned masters of the empire. But then in 1867, the Austrian empire broke into the Austro-Hungarian empire -- giving the Hungarians some autonomy. Also in 1867, Basic State Act allowed ethnic minorities to be educated in their own language -- so that the Germans began to feel as if they were a minority in their own empire. After WW1, Austria thought that it couldn't survive alone, so it wanted to become part of Germany. But the Anschluss was denied by the victorious Allies.
little fun fact: Chiang Wei-kuo, a son of Chiang Kai-shek, was in the Wehrmacht during the times of the Anschluss and crossed the border to Austria in a panzer.
"The Austrian Socialists actually read and understood Marx, unlike some people. I'm looking at you, Soviet Union." ..... LOL!
Thnx for noticing!
Mikhailia Gacesa it was a really stupid jab considering industrialization was the main goal of the Soviet Union from the beginning.
@@JacatackLP Not quite. Marxist theory basically predicted that increasing levels of efficiency in industrial and agricultural processes would tend to drive out workers with capital replacing them, and leave a large underutilised pool of reserve labor. As there would be a lot of labor wages would crater, causing resentment, and further causing a socialist revolution.
However ;
1) The Russians were a heavily agrarian and unindustrialised society, meaning the revolution was not caused by increasing levels of capital and capital efficiency
2) The precipitating event for the revolution were famines caused by the war and exacerbated by Russias poor infrastructure ,low agricultural productivity, in addition to a lack of labor to work farms properly.
Pretty much every prediction of Marx's was made wrong via the example of Russia, as all of the causes were basically the exact opposite of what was predicted.
Marxism and Socalism can't work because a lot of things and because their overall theory is rubbish AND communism targeted at the destruction of the bourgeoise society and order. The Austro Marxism were never a substantial threat towards the Austrian system, but the Soviet Revolution affecting both the new Weimar Republic and newly created Austria also on a governmental level and coups. It's totally uninteresting if former Russia was largely agrarian, because the ineffectiveness was increased under Communist rule and nobody invested to create a non-industrial society. The Socialists who wanted to create Socialism through processes of "reform", called Social Democrats, were the "common threat" in Germany and UK, because it's just a slower approach of Socialism and regression! The Fabian Society which was Socialist to a core and others critized the Soviet Union, yes, but so did everyone who could not let himself lynched. That could easily happen, cause misinformation or relativism was also fought by liberals. But just anti-socialists were as radical about why and Socialism always lead to failure and financial gain for those who benefit from it, the political class. That's why England, for example their Social Health Care system, and other things are complete trash, if you know other systems, but unable to reform in a non-standing world. That's why UKs mixed system is losing in a free market, just interesting for those who can benefit from the system. It's hard for the political right side, which is to be supposed anti-socialist, to commit that most of British influenced theories are complete trash, fictive or wishful thinking and also propaganda. Even Orwell, who put his own socialists thoughts in perspective, critizing mostly everything Socialist, had to critize it through 1984 again. In the end, socialism is just a conspiracy theory worth nothing.
Probably better said, "I'm looking at you, Lenin." Since the point was that the Soviet Union's ideology was not Marxism but Marxism-Leninism. Marx regarded industrial workers as the sole progressive revolutionary class and had contempt for peasants as backward. Lenin altered Marxism to include the peasantry as a progressive revolutionary class, equal to the industrial workers -- hence the sickle being added to the already long-standing socialist symbol of the hammer (such as the Arm & Hammer logo).
Thank you for this. It helped to make a number of points clear.
Thank you. It's always interesting to hear things from someone who lives there. The comment about Vienna - said a lot. Everything's always a lot more complicated than it seems.
.
Thank you for the video. Seen from Czech perspective, it seems to me that, before 1918, the German speaking Austrians called themselves Germans, not Austrians. This is to support your explanation, how the Austrian identity was only developping. If I remember correctly, I believe I read a text by Robert Musil (K.u.K. inpersonated) from shortly after ww1, where he quite harshly rejected to call himself an Austrian, which he felt maybe even humiliating.
> Thank you for the video. Seen from Czech perspective, it seems to me that, before 1918,
> the German speaking Austrians called themselves Germans, not Austrians.
yeah, as far as I remember that was also the statement in the official Austrian history of the monarchy in the volume on nationalities in the monarchy, I didn't have access to it when I did the video, which I think was a bit of a spontaneous affair.
i guess it was seen as humiliating at that time because austrian could mean anything from a czech to a slovene down to italian or croat and so on
I would say the proper phrase is "it was embraced mostly for the promise of internal stability that had been sorely lacking in the previous 19 years"...
Erstens: Hallo Landsmann von einem Sozialisten aus Wien! (First: Hello countryman from a socialist from Vienna), this video could be summarized under the phrase “be careful what you wish for”, and it is always refreshing to hear an actual historian talk about such things, because only too often, people A) forget that decisions are never made in hindsight, and that B) reality is always how it is, and never how you'd like it to be.
What I particularly like about this video is the strong hint to how absolutely broken and divided everything back then was, how everybody worked against everybody else, because nobody trusted anyone else, and you'd hardly ever of all people take responsibility for _yourself_ for the current mess you're in. I mean, I was unaware of my predecessors attitude towards the rural population (“Bauernschädeln”), but it does not surprise me, and to this day, there is this divide between Vienna and the rest. I for instance grew up with the fact in mind that Vienna has only about 20% of the population of the country, but yields more than 25% of its economic output. Doesn't sound too bad, does it? _Unless you realize_ that, without “the other parts of Austria”, the big city would simply be unable to do that. Cooperation is always better than division, and I just hope we do not need another … calamity? … to realize it.
Oh, wait, there's the divide in the U.S., there is Brexit, there is Syria,… DARN IT!
Austrian interwar history gets overlooked. This is helpful.
Just studied this in Mark Mazower's "Hitler's Empire", but it's nice to have an opionion from someone involved and informed at the same time.
Thank you very much. Now I finally understand why the Austrians liked the Anschluß. Sehr gute Arbeit, auch für Deine anderen Videos. Danke!
Please! More on this topic! Thanks.
Hey mhv I have a question for you. Do you Austrians want südtirol back? If so how much would you be willing to pay?
Would the Italians really give it back is the question? I thought Mussolini had expelled all germans from there
Nope, there is still a big Southern German minority there, and nationalistic feelings are still strong in some of these people. There was even a resistance movement after WW2 that commited various terror attacks until the 1980s, I think.
Pretty much, yes.^^
Also, at this point, Südtirol has a large degree of autonomy within Italy that it would most probably not have as part of Austria. As long as that stays in place, and the Schengen borders stay open, there's little reason to change the status quo.
Part of the current government in Austria want Südtirol back. Südtirol on the other hand doesn't really want back. They have a large degree of autonomy and are doing massively better than the rest of Itlay and are on par with Austria. I don't think they are willing to lose that.
Btw the Germans in Südtirol aren't a minority, they are a bit over 60% of the population.
Thank you! I did learn something new.
Did the Germans maintain Austrian units after Anschluss and just rename them or completely reorganize everything? Were there any fully Austrian Heer/SS divisions?
Might do a vlog on that topic
From what I know, full divisions of Austrian units were incorporated directly into the Wehrmacht. I think the 45th Heer originally was the 4th Army in Austria however smaller units were added to creating new divisions. Germany had a couple of mixed national divisions I believe.
Hi there. Had been watching your video for over two years and it's really been a wonderful learning experience. Just wondering, would you mind talk about Soviet barricade area troops?Especially, their battle order, equipment, formation and battle effectiveness. Thanks!
“Who likes Vienna? Eh? Am-I right?”
Is this like classic Austrian observational comedy?
Thank you Bernhard, you are the best.
Little nitpicking: It wasn't the treaty of Versailles that prohibited the name "Deutsch-Österreich" and unification between Germany and Austria, but the treaty of Saint Germain. To be precise it was Article 88 of the treaty.
Off topic: Have you worked with the Landesverteidigungsakademie in Vienna before?
well, I mention the "treaties" (plural) and that one from Saint Germain, but yeah, maybe I used the Plural there. Yeah, I noticed the irony today with article number.
Off topic: no, as far as I know the only "professionals" that "recognize me" are from the US/UK.
I studied this period intensley in grad school, wrote my master's thesis about it. I wouldn't say Anschluss was really popular before it happened in 1938. Sure, it's hard to say exactly since there weren't any opinion polls or free elections, but the socialist leadership, jailed by Schussnig, was ready to fight and support the country against Hitler. Thing was, Schussnig found his guys in the clerical-fascist right-wing dictatorship had gone over to the Nazis. The Nazis ended up sending Schussnig to one of his own concentration camps. If you really want a good read on this, and an exhaustive one, check out "Austria, From Hapsburg to Hitler" ny Charles A. Gulick, particularly volume I.
can only tell you what I learned in university and it's pretty clear that all names included Deutsch/Deutschland in 1918. Additionally, our academy of sciences put out a book on the Nationalities of the Monarchy and explicitly notes that there is no "Austrian" but only "German" in the Empire.
WTF? From Hapsburg to Hitler is from 1948... seriously, that book is probably full of the "victim"-narrative "we" spread after the war. Wouldn't be too surprised if that stuff is totally outdated and biased as crazy. Similar to many early historians taking all the claims from German Generals at face value.
I'm surprised he didn't mention Seyss-Inquart, the the leader of the Austrian Nazi movement.
Military History Vlogs No, it was written by an American economics professor from Texas who taught at UCal Berkeley, so I don't think he had any axe to grind. Kurt Schussnig was that sort, putting forth that "we were the first victim's of the Nazis pity us..." for the rest of his days, see his book Austrian Requiem. He ended up teaching at St. Louis University in Missouri. I still found it an interesting, if biased read. I particularly remember a line about "when Dollfuss and I were in Seefeld for the national ski championships..." I thought "hey, I've been to Seefeld, there were only two hotels in that town, I may have stayed in the same room as a not-so-famous dead guy!" 😆
Well, I meant that he very likely had only limited sources and at the same time everyone in Austria was working to establish the victim narrative. Great example is the talk Ferguson had with Sam Harris, where he tried to use a Hamburg archive to get a picture of the hyperinflation and it wasn't possible since they had omitted most stuff and/or were rather ignorant.
and as for the socialist leadership wanting to fight hitler i highly doupt that as their most prominent figure Karl Renner activly encouraged to vote for the anschluss (which gave him the oportunity to stay home for the whole war unlike pretty much any other politican)
Damn, was your hair Anschluss-ed?
I think it simply got to the point where it started to look goofier than what we're used to in the other videos. The beard looks pretty sporty though!
Re-watched this after a while and I really have to wonder why so few people have watched it compared to most of the other videos. Also; yeaahh Vienna is my Wunschheimat...
> why so few people have watched it compared to most of the other videos.
I think you are mistaken 65K for this channel is quite a lot, maybe you confuse this with my main channel.
> yeaahh Vienna is my Wunschheimat...
nobody is perfect
Thanks for the video. There are a lot of misconceptions about the Anschluss also among us Austrians
I'm curious if anyone nowadays who wants a union with Germany in Austria and vice-versa. Imho all Germans, and not only them, should live in one country, but that's my opinion.
The whole discussion has been made obsolete by the European Union. As I see you are Bulgarian one can ask, who wants Macedonia to join Bulgaria? Or for Americans, why does Canada not join the US? The general reply would always be "what for?".
@@michaelrenper796 The European union is temporary. Not that countries will last forever. Just a little bit more.
Most want that North Macedonia joins Bulgaria. Or at least most in the place that I live. Since the failed Comintern project isn't joining the famed and renowned EU any time soon.
And lastly I fail to see the connection between the fabled EU, Bulgaria and North Macedonia on the one hand and Canada and the USA on the other.
For me Austria will always be like Bavaria +
German, actually not really German, but still part of the German culture
Quick question.
Do you teach at any school or do you do presentations somewhere?
I'd love to see them.
I'm sure a man of your knowledge does something with it(other then presenting it on youtube)
Good but short vid, feels like there is alot going on but i guess it would take many long vids about 1918-1945+
Great video, Could u please make one about Germany’s annexation of Czechoslovakia?
I don't know much about Austrian politics. At the macro level, it seems reasonable that Austria is too small to be economically viable in difficult global economic situations, aggravated by the lack seaport access, so it seems like a good idea to make a customs union with a larger country, more so when the head of state was a native Austrian.
I recall reading somewhere (sorry no source) that Baltic Germans reintegrated into the Third Reich were not particularly enthusiastic to be drafted into the Wehrmacht. I do not recall what the assessment of Sudetenland german's performance as soldiers.
I think some of your other videos mention Austrian divisions. I gather these were up to par with native German divisions? This alone would be a positive because Austro-Hungary did not fight particularly well in WWI. Could this be blamed on an officer corps with too many privileged high nobility?
One article mentioned an Austrian support unit that recruited many village girls as nurses for support a hospital unit even though they had no training to be useful in this regard, though many contracted VD.
There was a conversation that Manstein had with von Rundstedt asking why he (Rundstedt) had no great coat(?). Rundstedt replied that he did was not going to buy one at that time, considering at his age, that probably would not get enough use out it to be worthwhile.
By the anti Vienna statement, do you mean we dont like getting told what to do by the government? But why being anti Vienna? Austrians love Vienna and millions of tourists from all over the world love it even more...
Austrians love Vienna, LOL that was a good one.
Yeah, I also recommend tourists to check it out.
ummm..... if you're going to reply to a question, you should at least answer it. I dont think he was looking for you to try to unhurt his feelings instead. I was curious too, then when I clicked read replies, I see a modern German apollogist reply instead of a factual based answer. Is it really that bad in Europe? The German apollogist mentality?
Its not a big deal to say "Many of us dont like the many of governments decisions in Austria, so I added it as a joke" or "There is a running joke that Viennians are snobby." or "Vienna has a bad reputation for having a lot of snobs, so I added it for humor" It would have been a lot more satisfying and informative than "Oh sorry! Yes I retract my statement, SO SORRY SIR! Terribly sorry! Good day! SORRY!" I understood it as an unserious joke, I love your jokes, they're so very subtle and amusing. :)
But Falco said all of Vienna was on heroin. He even made a short audio-documentary about it:
ruclips.net/video/uuR3xwYATbM/видео.html
Now I don't know what to believe... :0
Last time I was this late, the war only lasted for 1 year
So what is your opinion on Piefkes (or whetever plural form of this word is)?
Happy Anschluss y'all 🎉
no
We dont celebrate that
Yeah... Next Anschluss will be the other way around as it's supposed to be... 😜
falanglao01 I can get behind that
Johan Jacobs Danzig or war
great video
This is a brilliant video!
I'm back to nitpick your pronunciation (in the hope of helping you).
When you say "conservatives" say it like "Konservenglas". You seem to rush through the word, stretch it out. "Konserventives" - > "Conservatives". Hope I could help.
thx, you should have heard the first 4 approaches :D
Military History Vlogs
Hahahaha, I'm not sure if I could withstand that! Take care.
Kon serr vuh tivz
I didnt even notice to be honest.😅
Vienna is brilliant! The home of classical music!
Whould you want a modern Anschluss?
Anschluss II happened in 1995 when Austria joined the EU
We call it EU nowadays
If germany gers rid of the immigration boner
We are working on it
The thing is foks not recognize that after WWII we the German people have been split into 3 countries. So we are still down one reunification.
Plz do some Republic of China Airforce video.
The difference between the Austrofascists and the Nazis were mostly superficial, but fascists have a tendency to be willing to commit violence over superficial things, but more importantly for power. They ultimately had the same goal on the end: Anschluss with Nazi Germany.
Excellent insight! But you didn't disprove that it was voted for. Like you said the vast majority supported it, even if they came to regret it in hindsight. Just because it was a kind of fairytale doesn't mean that's not what the majority wanted 21st the time of the actual vote.
> But you didn't disprove that it was voted for.
because there is nothing to disprove about it. Was the vote manipulated by various means: of course, but I have little doubt that even without any manipulation it would have been a landslide, just by looking at the previous sentiments in the Empire and also the 1st Republic.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Ok then it's not "a myth that sometimes comes from Germany" right? It's not a myth then? It's fact, they would have won in a landslide even without rigging?
it is an oversimplification if one implies Austrians voted for an Anschluss because of Hitler. I am rather sure, I made this clear in the video, but either you didn't pay attention or you want to troll. I did this video more than 1 year ago.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I'm not trolling. Clearly the Anschluss was voted in by the people of Austria. And its not a myth. I was just confused by your conflicting statements is all.
well, I would have to rewatch the video to find what your issue might be or not, but since back then there were no major issues, I don't think there was a major error nor conflicting statement. Although, my usual approach is to bring forward several factors and view-points, since most people simplify and aspects like the Anschluss are quite complicated even if one just looks at 1918 to 1938, which is already very condensed.
I can remember only one guy that had some old Austrian myths that most Austrians were against the Anschluss, but his info was based on asking people post-war... yet, since he brought that point up as an argument that would not make sense, if I had claimed that Austrians were against the Anschluss.
do you know something about Czechoslovakia providing economical aid to Austria after WW2?
no
I read somewhere that shortly after the war Czechoslovakia was sending some aid (vehicles, food etc...) to Austria, can't remember where, was hoping you might have read somewhere about it, ah well was worth a try :)
Austria is like the number 1 troublemaker who threw all guilt to his second class partner ang got away with it
Austrians don't like taking orders from Berlin...after centuries of Habsburgs in Vienna trying to give orders to the rest of the Germans!
This video is nice added context and I don't want to lecture an Austrian about Austria.
Still, I think none of that period makes sense without an understanding of the HRE and how a "German" nation formed in the first place.
das schlimme is das mit wien stimmt xD
Wasn't Mussolini against the Anchluss because he was trying to build better relations with Austria. I believe he even threatened war with Germany if they annexed Austria. However he stepped back after England and France ignored it
Thats an interesting effect on the game changer. Imagine if things went different. Source?
Mousulini steped back because hitler suported him in the colonial wars with resources
I would like to see a video about the monarchist or catholic resistance in austria against the nazis
That would be interesting, and perhaps a learning experience of how to do things peacefully.(or at least what didnt work) I've heard some very sad things : (
Wasn't there a border conflict with Hungary sometime after the First World War? I read about it in the magazine Military History Quarterly some years ago, I forgot most of the details in the magazine but I do know that the Socialist Democrats played a large part in Austria during the war.
schizoidboy I believe so, while the communist Bela Kun was running Hungary. I couldn't find a reference to it on wikipedia however, so maybe it was a really small scale thing?
There was some conflict around Ödenburg/Sopron but that had been resolved by 1924. The Austrian-Hungarian border was almost the only border in the former Empire that was _not_ contested by anyone after that.
You might find that interesting (BPB is a good source in general): www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/265958/anschluss-oesterreich
yeah, I agree on bpb is a good source in general, although, I need to add: except when it comes to computer games. At least the last time I took a look there.
Haven't researched on that subject there (yet), but good to know that (my guess) they have the early 2000s conservative idea about them, i.e. the "video games cause violence"-trope. I used the bpb for political, social sciences and historical topics and the results were between mildly usable to very good, and quite actual time-wise.
But of course it has to be kept in mind that it is subject to the federal ministry of the interior. Everyone has an agenda. :) But their stuff is either free or hilariously cheap, I have quite the stockpile from them (well, they reside in my universitie's city, too...)
yeah, I had quite many books of them too during my university time. When I started out with this channel, I was actually looking at their catalogue again, but didn't order anything. Not sure if they stopped republishing "regular books" with different covers for a few bucks. I noticed their prices etc. increased compared to 2003(?).
Regular price is mostly 4,50 € and the larger books (~500 pages) come in at 7 € ("Schriftenreihe"). A couple of months ago, for example, they released the book "Mehr Reichtum, mehr Armut" from H. Kaelble for 4,50 € while the "regular" publisher wants to have 19 € for the same book. I think their prices are reasonable, maybe you want to take a look, they have a military section too, though I never read anything from there yet.
Edit: Providing link is more easy. www.bpb.de/shop/buecher/schriftenreihe/136219/militaer
danke!
Achso du bist Österreicher :D jetzt mog i di glei vü liaba :D
Good video, but next time put subtitles man!
Perfect thesis.
Hi, could you please add English subtitles sometimes, or pronounce better? Automatic subs don't work due to your German accent.
sorry, no time for that, I have community submitted subtitles activated.
I can't imagine, that the catholic church was for the 'Anschluss' because the Nazi were animies of them. May be the one or the other naive or german-nationalist priest did like the Nazi.
Who advised the Austrians to vote for the so called 'Anschluss' was Karl Renner, the leader of the socialdemocratic party in Austria.
The problem was, that during the austrofascist dictatorship the nazi and the leftists were together prisoners in the detention camps of the austrofascist regime and so often they did know each other. Therefore, the first time, after the Nazi had occupied Austria, the leftists had not such problems like the conservatives.
You also can't call the fake election for or against the 'Anschluss' a real democratic election, because the result was decided in advance. Or do you think, the Nazi would have left Austria in the case of a negative result? A lot of people, where the Nazi expected, they would vote against them, were not allowed to vote. This election was so fair and democratic like an election in the old Soviet union or in todays China.
Also a lot of Austrians did not like the Nazi. The Tote Gebirge (Dead Mountains) could never become occupied by the Nazi, because the resistance of Austrian partisans, also in eastern Styria were Austrian partisans, in Vienna were resistance groups (05 - you can see this numbers till today in the wall of the Stefansdom [St. Stephan's cathedral] in Vienna, the partisans of Tito in former Yougoslavia had own Austrian units with the Austrian flag on their uniforms and so on.
But unfortunately the history of the Austrian resistance against the Nazi is nearly till today a taboo subject. After the WW2 the Austrian politicians wanted the votes of the Austrian Nazis and so they denied this part of our history - they didn't want to offend the former Nazi. It's a big shame, that till today in our schools the history of the Austrian resistance is not part of the lessons. Only really dedicated teachers teach this issue.
> I can't imagine, that the catholic church was for the 'Anschluss' because
your imagination is seriously lacking, a) it is historical fact and b) besides that the catholic church most of the time tried to work out a "co-existence" with various regimes, in this case it did not work out.
> You also can't call the fake election for or against the 'Anschluss' a real democratic election
never did, pay attention
> But unfortunately the history of the Austrian resistance against the Nazi is nearly till today a taboo subject.
what? de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokumentationsarchiv_des_%C3%B6sterreichischen_Widerstandes
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
Then explain please, why you tell about the election to the Anschluss in a way, if it would have been a normal democratic election. You tried to explain why so many Austrians have voted for the Anschluss.... what's that?! You can forget this so-called election, because it was a fake. You stultify yourself.
To the Austrian resistance - I didn't learn anything about it in the highschool. My father told it and he also explained me, why it's not teached. My children also did hear nearly nothing about the Austrian resistance in history in their schools - so I told them.
That the catholic church always has tried to arrange with the different actual powers that's a fact. But it was also one of the issues of the nazi to attac the church - so it wasn't possible to get a bearable arrangement for the church with the nazi. Therefore it's also documented in the DÖW, that there was also a catholic resistance.
Well, one of the reasons that made Austrian identity and nation creation possible is aiming to not affiliated with NAZI Germany so they won't be grabbed by Soviets. ;-)
12th march is my birthday
Germans always dreamt of a greater german solution which was not possible because of the two emperor (Hohenzollern / Habsburger). So 1871 they just united the german tribes without Austria.
But like Saxons, Bavarians, etc. Austrians are still Germans. And I never felt like I am in a different country when i visited Austria coming from Bavaria-Germany.
This older song from 1813 tells more about how Germans felt back in those days (english subs)
ruclips.net/video/-9OUJcbgnXg/видео.html
You didn't but we Austrians don't like to see our culture being dicted by a foreign state
Du könntest noch einen eigenen deutschen Kanal machen 🤔
Siehe faq
Why don't you like Vienna?
I assume that there's nothing wrong with the city and you mean the politicians, right? In that case you probably should't like any capital in the world, they're all the same...
It's just some kind of an Austrian thing to hate Vienna...
Being the former capital of a huge empire does tend to make a city beautiful, grand, and more than a bit arrogant.
its more like a countryside vs the big city thing. Vienna is ruled by leftwing partys, and some say people from vienna are uppish and they think they are more educated, cosmopolitan. The countryside on the other side is considered to be too traditional, backward, old-fashioned. Both sides think the other side has no idea about their problems... I think the situation is similar to many countries/states. (Bavaria, Germany, Great Britain, France)
ingrainedQuark Austria is like 96% peasants and Mountains and then there is Vienna. Complete different cultures
@Aranubius that classic effect of brainwashing people that their education makes them smarter. Smarter than anyone who didnt go to their school, no matter what,even if they didnt learn anything. Capitalist marketing.
why is he stuttering so much in this video?
#anschlusszeit
Anyone else think he looks better after he shaved his head?
I liked his hairstyle before, it looked more german, though I suppose a changing hairline can effect options. His beard looks like he could do that pointy evil villian look if he tried to. 😅 For now it looks pretty sporty. :)
Anschluss was a beautiful thing - the Germanic people should be united
Pretty much all Austrians don't think so. And even Germany is a conglomerate of different cultures, even in some federal states there are much different dialects and cultural differences bordering on hate (NEVER ask a Franconian if he is a Bavarian, ffs).
Well, obviously you think this way, as you are for the Anschluss. Well, sorry to tell you but there is virtually nobody thinking about this in Austria or Germany. The last party for unification in Austria was disbanded in 1988.
It's funny how England Scotland and Wales are united and doing fine despite their cultural and linguistic differences but Germany and Austria aren't
Well, it's a leftover from the HRE. Germany was only unified, without Austria, in 1871. Until then you weren't a German, but a Hannoveranian, Hessian, Saxon or Bavarian. Only in the 19th century mainly because of the French occupation started the thinking of all these countries as being German to gain ground. This is also the major reason why modern Germany is a federal republic, with a lot of the governmental power in the hands of the federal states that are often based on the old borders from the 19th century or even earlier.
The cultural differences between especially northern Germany (southern not that much, but it depends) and Austria are quite big in some regards, religion plays a part there, too: most of northern Germany is protestant, Austria almost completely catholic. This extends to the language, while don't have a lot of problems understanding people from Vienna or Salzburg, the further south and east you go the less I understand the "German", up to the point where I am virtually unable to make sense of any word the people say...and I have been in Austria quite a few times over the years. Also I think MHV mentioned he does not like the Austrian work ethic and considers himelf being more "Prussian" than the average Austrian. On top of that Prussia and the northern German states fought quite a few wars against Austria most famous the 7 Years War, sometimes considered the first world war (Prussia and UK were allies, with the Electorate of Brunswick-Hanover being part of the UK) and the 2nd German War.
At this point England and Wales had been united for I think 500 years, and Scotland with England for 270 years? So there is a huge difference in years to forget about the past, and still there is a strong independence movement in Scotland. Especially in Germany, some history remains unforgotten for quite a long time...
Nah, fuck Austria, exept Vienna.
Nowadays Austria anschluss you!
Didn't the Ottomans like Vienna very much? At one point?
Thats an interesting thing to bring up. I often forget about the world war I german otto alliance.
My comment was more a reference for this battle: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna"
so it was sarcasm? or a desire to take the city? Not totally clear on your meaning. The war of islamic expansion had come to my mind first, but then I thought of the alliance in the first world war
Well, he said at 6:20 "Let's face it, who like vienna? I certainly don't." So yes, my comment was a form of sarcasm. Like, at least someone was interested in Vienna.
Was wäre passiert wenn sich Österreich militärisch gewehrt hätte? Der Einmarsch der Wehrmacht war doch sehr chaotisch.
soweit ich weiß, war das Bundesheer nicht mobilisiert, dementsprechend wäre jeglicher Widerstand wohl relativ schnell unterdrückt worden. Über die Ausstattung mit Panzerabwehrwaffen weiß ich leider nichts, aber die Wehrmacht kam mit Panzern.
Das Bundesheer hatte einige 4.7cm Panzerabwehrgeschütze M35 Böhler. Holland setzte diese z.B. gegen Deutschland ein. Ein Bericht über das Bundesheer vor 1938 wäre toll.
Haha, this guys always shitting on Vienna. Whats his deal with Vienna?
Not true. My grandfather felt 100% Austrian and he was a staunch Nationalist; though Jewish. We will never know the percentage of Austrians who supported the Nazis because there was never a real vote but it was a lot. I have a letter from him addressed to the Nazi authorities in which he says I am an Austrian citizen.
Bro. Your English is perfect but your accent makes it almost impossible to follow you.
thanks, you will get used to it, sadly any attempts to reduce my accent so far were not fruitful.
A lot of whitewash going on here! Austrians of all segments of society we're suffering from nostalgia for the greatness of Empire lost. Austrians watched their prestige decline for 70 years after the 1866 Austro-Prussian war when that Austro-Hungarian empire was defeated by one Germanic principality. In the same time period that the US grew from an isolated republic to a nascent world power, when a confederation of German principalities became an empire and sustained a similar defeat in WW1 without the total dismemberment suffered by themselves. Germany on the rise to empire and glory was an irresistible draw.
Whitewash what exactly? I don't know what you mean and how it is related to your paragraph.
Austrian Are forever germans ! No one should Split the German People !!
we're not german
BonJoviworstbandever
Austrians Are Germans
that is factually incorrect
BonJoviworstbandever
Austrians Are germans, because Austrians have Same ancestors as Bavarians and this Tribe was one of the 7 Germanic tribes which became what is now Austria bavaria saxony etc. Austrians Are ethnic, historical, cultural germans. We sare over 1500 years of Common History and unification
labels are an illusion, there are only humans, all increasingly intermixed genetically.
"Let's face it: Who likes Vienna? I certainly don't"
*clicks Patreon link*
danke!
Then the Winged Hussars arrived!
@@iangascoigne8231 The people ;)
Perhaps he is meaning people in a rural setting don't like being dictated rule by urban people.
How can you not like vienna? The germans are the only people who hate austria got suck in still nazi german for 3 year never met a nice germany lots of nice people living in germany, in austria most are nice I love vienna I only wish they would bring back the border
Glorious beard
It gets gloriouser
Could you make something concerning the South Tyrol issue?
It's really something how Hitler was consistently indifferent about it despite all his nationalist rhetoric. Willing to go to war over every other German-inhabited area outside the Reich borders, but always wrote off South Tyrol as an Italian possession, even when, such as 1943, he was in a position to formally annex it.
South Tyrol was a small region in the south of Austria given over to Italy after the first world war. Italy had been promised it as part of the package of territory it was to receive in exchange for entering the war. The Italians were said to "deserve" it based on the idea that rivers and mountains form the "natural borders" of countries. And because of this, Italy deserved all the territory right up to the start of the passes that cross the Alps.
Italy ruled the area badly and attempted to convert the people there into Italians. Anti-fascist parties in germany tended in the 1920s to complain about Germans in South Tyrol but Germans nowhere else in Europe. The nazis tended to complain about German minorities everywhere but South Tyrol. The issue in Germany became a proxy for supporting or opposing Italian Fascism and Mussolini.
Hitler's view was that Tyrol was tiny, territorially insignificant, that other areas (poland, Czechoslovakia, France) were a higher priority which offered more and that the issue could be resolved best through good relations with Italy. He also said that those talking about South Tyrol were simply using it as a proxy to attack Mussolini's regime. Due to the controversy within Germany over the issue, he wrote his views about it at length.
There was an agreement in 1939 which encouraged the German population to leave South Tyrol for resettlement within Germany.
In 1943, the Germans made South Tyrol part of (Greater) Germany for administrative and governmental purposes. But technically never annexed it. Though it could be claimed that the government arrangements made were a de-facto annexation.
In 1945, it was decided by the US to keep South Tyrol as a part of Italy. It was assumed that now that the "liberated" Italy would treat the area better. The Italians were also able to convince everyone that autonomy for the area was not necessary. But the Italians went back to attempting to assimilate the area immediately leading to political problems. There was trouble over the issue interationally for 20 years. Then around 1969, Italy was convinced to grant South Tyrol "autonomy". Then after 20 more years, they had effectively reached full autonomy.
Austria and Italy both being in the European Union meant that when the border controls came down, South Tyrol re-integrated economically and even to a degree politically with the rest of the Tyrol. Its still a part of Italy. But a part of Italy that operates at arms length from Rome.
@@Jim-Tuner But Memel was equally tiny
@@IrishCarney Memel is a different situation. After the war, it had been detached from Germany and occupied by France but with no certain plan as to what would happen to it (other than it would under no circumstances be given back to Germany). The German government at the time (1922-23) actually supported and encouraged the Lithuanian takeover of memel. They preferred Lithuania to have it rather than it be given to Poland or that French occupation might continue forever. The nationalists (nazi and otherwise) never seemed to make much of an issue out of it until 1934 (or at least I've never seen anything that suggests that they did). Until that year, Germany was a major trading partner of Lithuania.
In 1934, the dictator in Lithuania conducted a series of mass arrests in Memel and effectively ended the relationship with Germany. At that point, the Nazis became interested in Memel as an issue and it became a big part of their agenda. By 1938, Hitler was saying suddenly that it was his #2 priority after the Czech lands. Lithuania on the other hand was, after the break with Germany, was pretty much surrounded by states that were hostile to it. In 1938, Poland basically handed them a list of demands and threatened invasion if they were not accepted within 48 hours. Poland even had a backdoor deal with the Germans to allow the Germans to take over memel if Poland went to war with Lithuania.
By 1939, the situation in Lithuania was so desperate that they were willing to agree to anything.
It was very similar to South Tyrol in that nationalist principles took a back seat to foreign policy. When Lithuania was friendly, they didn't care much about Memel. But when it was unfriendly they suddenly cared about it. If Germany had other options for allies and had turned hostile to Italy, Hitler would probably have started making an issue out of the South Tyrol.
What would be your translation of the word 'Anschluss' to English? Translated through the Swedish word, 'Anslutning', it would be 'Connection'. Which in my opinion seems quite fitting!
hmmm yeah, I think connection.
It's amazing how similar german and swedish is. :)
Thanks for the reply, cheers!
union with austria is quite enough and descriptive.
In dutch that be aansluiting. Translating to joining up or joining in. If its vowl. Conection fits if you say that connection or the connection.
But i think the action of the austian state joins up. Is more accurate
I'd like to hear more about the adaptations the Austrian Bundesheer made in the year and a half between the Anschluss and the outbreak of WWII. How it integrated into the mobilization system of the German Wehrmacht, etc. The interwar Austrian army included no Gebirgs divisions, for example, but after Anschluss, two such divisions were organized.
I'd like to hear how that reoganization proceeded.
Yeah and even more. Did Berlin scatter Austrians across the Heer to prevent them being concentrated and dangerous? Or segregate them away from the rest of the Heer like second-class citizens?
I’m from the future
It exists
Vienna is a beautiful city. I'd love to visit it again.
RonJohn63 - Bring a Kevlar-reinforced jacket + pepper spray...
Has it changed that much since 1996?
RonJohn63 - definitely! Not as bad as major German cities but very close - this weekend alone there were several knife attacks... Watch alternative media if u wanna learn more - I don't wanna start a current political discussion on this history channel...
falanglao01 I call BS. Data for Vienna from the statistics of the General Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt):
Murder (including attempted murder) StGB §75: 67 (2010) - 59 (2013) - 57 (2016).
Population has increased (from MA13, diePresse): 1,689,995 (2010) - 1,741,246 (2013) - 1,867,960 (2016)
Unfortunately the fraction of total morons has also climbed: from 21.6% in 2010 to 26.0% in 2015.
How about you inform yourself properly before shouting utter nonsense?
a virgin trying to judge my sex life, how amusing
I would like to thank you. I am an archaeologist, and a student of history. Your channel always gives a new point of view, and new knowledge. Keep it up, I'm a fan.
Large cities always move towards powerful central governments.
The teacher I had in German said that Wien was nowadys too large for a small country like Austria, since its no longer this capitol of a great empire and centre for the German speaking world. But I think I disagree, I mean Copenhagen is not much smaller despite Denmark only got 5,7 million people.
And I guess that history could easily had taken another turn, in the past and Wien and Magdeburg would have been the biggest cities in a unified German empire today. Berlin would never had grown as much as it have without the Prussian glory, and Magdeburg was roughly equal in size to Wien before the sacking during the 30-years war.
Its interesting to think how even more massive this city would have become if a Austro-German empire (plus Switzerland) had been created.
I don't think Switzerland would've joined. Though such a disgrace they are.
TheAmir259 lol joining who asked. Its called real politiek
After Austria lost the war the people were heavy suffering because of the econmic consequences by loosing the crown lands because the rest which was left were just Vienna and mainly poor mountain-farmers to be honest so it was a economic disaster especially for Vienna which was simply too big for the rest of the this now small and now just mountainous country ....and politically it was divided in many ways. There were the conservatives which were very close with the also political influencal catholic church (by saying who votes for the socialst will end in hell and when they will gain power we all end in hell) and on the other side the socialist which were mostly atheists who "preached" against the catholic church or at least agnostics. So there were a relgious controversion + a political controversion. The socialists were strong in Vienna and some cities because there were the factory-workers and the conservatives in the agricultural rest of Austria. But in the question about the annexion to Germany it was divided too but totally mixed up. The people who voted for conservatives were divided as well as the people who voted for the socialists. Even many families were divided by this question. So it was a really messed up situation in those times...... Just to give you a bit clearer picture.......
And about the term "Austro-Faschismus"....Well, that´s a typical Austrian thing I would say....
because it is right to say that it wasn´t really "Fascim" what the conservatives did after they staged a coup to get in power simply because of their political agenda nothing wrong about that but on the otherside their methods weren´t different to the methods of the fascists at all they had also their goon squads and they also built a one-party-system to rule the country and they put the political opposition in jail and some of them were sentenced to death.... so how would you call something like this by acting like a fascist without being one???? This is a very difficult question for every historian I would say, isn´t it. So after struggeling around one historian probably said "Well this seems to be that this is - "our unique" - and special form of fascism because no one has done something like that before so lets call it Austro-Fascism to end this debate because my wife wants me to come home earlier today because it´s her mum´s 90th birthday and probably but most likely her last one"
Liked yet I think this topic should be more looked into, to what level were Austrians integrated to Germany? To what level did Austria and Austrians contribute to German war effort? How high did Austrians get both on the military ladder and political ladder?
Lothar Rendulic, Alexander Löhr and Erhard Raus was Austrians who reached army group commands during WW2
There is another myth about the "Anschluss". Why is the connection of Austria important for today's national identity as an Austrian? Because after the german defeat, the Austrians decided to slip into the role of victims. They presented themselves as the first victims of Nazi Germany; the first country occupied by Nazi Germany. The pictures and films of masses of enthusiastic Austrians about the Anschluss would have been Nazi propaganda. Only a minority have been supported the Anschluss.
That is just as embarrassing as the mendacious self-defense claim of the German population that they were not Nazis; only a minority. And the allied occupation soldiers were very astonished not to find any Nazis Germany anymore! Germans and Austrians de- nacified themselves with a snap of a finger. Amazing how similar Austrians and Germans were back then. :-)
Austrians are the best marketeers in history: They made the whole world believe that Beethoven was Austrian ... and Hitler a German.
No no you got that wrong, Hitler was Austrian and so Germany got Anschlußed by Austria. :D
Seeing you talking is much more interesting and engaging!
Do more of these vlogs!
From the European perspective, Fascism is certainly right wing, since Europe defines left vs right largely along nationalist vs classist lines.
From an American perspective, it's actually left wing, since we're Americans are pretty much all nationalists and left vs right is principally defined along collectivist vs individualist lines. Fascism is very collectivist and shares a lot of policy and philosophy with the Progressive movement, especially the early 20th century Progressive movement. It's left wing in America, right wing in Europe. All about definitions.
Facism is not righ or left wing. Mussolini himself said its the third way.
I adore your accent and your excellent English which I am only assuming is a "second" language for you. My guess is that you know quite a few languages.
I get a lot out of your content and while initially didn't think I would like not having visual additions, I find myself more able to focus on your lecture without video distractions.
Keep the content coming. I wish you great success
What we never learned in school was that Mr Schuschnigg wanted to do a poll about it on the 13. or 14th of March, but germany preassured him not to and to resign. Then they marched in, and later when they did the poll, they managed to open up some factories again beforehand, so more people had work. Additionally not everybody was allowed to vote, furthermore it was no anonymus vote. (people knew that bad things would happen to those who vote against) Still there where lots of sympathisants but not to the degree the outcome of the poll said.
1:48 ah do traut si da Mühlviatla ah wieda moi aussa
LordOfNoobstown was sagt er da? " Min a haufn...?"
mit einem Haufen "Bauernschädeln" (starrsinnige Menschen) kann man keine sozialistische Revolution machen - mid am haufen bauernschedln kau ma ka sozialistische Revolution mochn
@Military History Vlogs wirklich jetzad? Noch mehr Wien-Gehasse?
Man kanns auch übertreiben, sag ich jetzt mal als Oberösterreicher.
Trotzdem gutes Video
I like Vienna.
Actually Marx noted that the traditions for common land ownership in Russia were also a good start point for revolution. However it's true that the USSR had to develope first.
Actually Marx wrote that the revolution should start anywhere other than in Russia. His ideal places were England, France or Germany, for obvious reasons. You need a long capitalist phase to create wealth, before you can redistribute this wealth. Russia went from rule of soldiers to rule of the people (supposedly), without having a rule of merchants period, which was very necessary.
Marxism is not about dogma - Marx was wrong in hus assessment of the potential state of the working class in the capitalist core. That's why only more oppressive, backward countries turned revolutionary. This was expanded upon by Lenin and Mao :).
Wait are the communist admitting that they need to steal wealth because they can't generate their own? And that they need a capitalist phase first?
I mean, you do realize that wealth runs out, don't you?
It's not about the wealth, but concentration of production and capital. It is easiest to do it through capitalism, but then you risk capitalist taking power (how they did everywhere else). That's why NEP was so short-lived.
No. Communism in the Soviet Union was essentially modern slavery. It was a massive exploitation of the population. Like, people worked to generate resources like grain, ores, fuel, but the state essentially took everything. The state then traded everything very profitably on the international market, but the people never got anyhting of it. Just their flat in a multistory building, and the daily ration. Most hard currency was paid to international firms who developed petrochemical infrastructure etc. Then there was stupidly high investment in the defence sector, in the order of 50% of GDP.